In Georgia, Ahmaud Arbery`s young life came to an abrupt end when two armed white men shot Arbery, who was black, in broad daylight while he was jogging. His killers justified the murder by invoking Georgia`s Stand-Your-Ground law, and it wasn`t until months later that an investigation or arrest was conducted. Arbery`s senseless murder is the latest example of how stand-your-ground laws have been used to escalate gun violence, place vigilant justice above the value of human lives, and justify the unjust murder of unarmed young black men. The Oxford-led research team, which includes the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Toronto, conducted the most comprehensive examination of the impact of laws passed since 2005 that extend civil rights to use lethal force in self-defense without first attempting to retreat. But this is where an important problem arises, even if we focus on a reasonable standard of faith. The presumed relevance of danger perceptions is often the product of prejudice or prejudice, including racial prejudice or prejudice. Whites who kill blacks are 11 times more likely to be declared innocent in states where laws are on the ground than blacks who kill whites. The justification for the murder of Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis – and we can add Philando Castille, Stephon Clark and Walter Scott – reveals “a common denominator: our legal structures and agents have found it reasonable to perceive (unarmed) blacks as threatening.”  The study`s lead author, Dr David Humphreys of Oxford`s Department of Social Policy and Intervention said: “Lawmakers continue to enact these laws in the United States, often on the grounds that they have a positive impact on crime and public safety. Our study finds no evidence to support these claims. To unravel these mechanisms, ideal analyses would distinguish between the effects of stand-your-ground laws on criminal violence and the effects on violence in self-defense. Data on homicides, violent and property crimes are readily available. Methodological weaknesses in collecting data on the use of defensive weapons are well documented, but there are several lines of evidence (for further discussion, see Kleck, 2018; Hemenway and Solnick, 2015b; National Research Council, 2004; and our essay on the challenges of defining and measuring the use of defensive weapons).
Ideally, analyses of the impact of stand-your-ground laws on the use of defensive firearms would use data that captures whether the laws affect self-defense rates in the country (where the castle doctrine law already exempts victims from an opt-out obligation) or in other areas, as allowed by expanded stand-your-ground laws. This level of detail on the circumstances of the defensive use of weapons is not available in most existing data sources. The National Violent Death Reporting System provides detailed information on firearm deaths in participating states, but none of the studies that meet our inclusion criteria used this data source. Two studies we identified that met our inclusion criteria for this guideline separately examined the total number of homicides (as well as other types of crime) and justified homicides using statistics collected through the Federal Bureau of Investigation`s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Survey – although, As the authors point out, the definition of the program of justifiable homicides does not cover some incidents. that would be explicitly considered defensive use of weapons under expanded stand-your-ground laws (McClellan & Tekin, 2017; Cheng and Hoekstra, 2013). On that day nine years ago, Trayvon Martin was shot dead on his way home from a supermarket. One of the reasons her killer was acquitted is Florida`s Stand-Your-Ground law, which encourages a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach. Shooting-first laws are associated with increased homicide rates, resulting in an additional 700 homicides per year. “This comprehensive review of research on stand-your-ground laws pinpoints several studies that find no evidence of protection and increases the number of homicides in states where Stand Your Ground has been enacted. These findings are timely and must be understood by legislators who, as we speak, are considering a “Stand Your Ground” law for their state.
In all four cases, a standing defense was applied, but all shooters were convicted. While others may suggest that this means stand-your-ground laws don`t go too far, we think these examples illustrate a troubling change. Perhaps the scariest thing about Stand Your Ground isn`t what`s legal now – it`s what the most violent among us now consider legal in the name of self-protection. One of the shooters shot and killed teenager Jordan Davis during a verbal exchange about the volume of music in the car Davis was in. “[The shooter`s behavior] illustrates that our society seems to have gone astray,” Judge Russell Healey said at the Davis shooter`s sentencing. “We need to remember that there is nothing wrong with withdrawing and de-escalating the situation.” However, Stand Your Ground states do not result in the same increase in justified homicides if the accused is black. If a black person shoots a white person, the chances of the murder being declared justified are virtually the same whether the shooting took place in a Stand Your Ground state or a lawless Stand Your Ground state. If a black person shoots another black person in a stand-you-ground state, the likelihood that the murder will be considered justified increases by only one percentage point. This underscores that for a black defendant who invokes self-defense, stand-your-ground laws do not increase the likelihood that the murder will be declared justified. Weapons carried in public pose a threat to public safety, and lax secret wearing laws increase the risk of violent confrontation.
Moreover, by reducing the legal risks associated with the use of lethal force, these laws could encourage the escalation of aggressive confrontations, leading to an overall increase in homicides or injuries involving firearms. In addition, the greater likelihood of dealing with a citizen willing to use a firearm defensively under this policy could encourage criminals to carry firearms more frequently, thereby increasing the proportion of violent or property crimes. Stand your fundamental laws will not be applied fairly as a defense. White men are more likely to successfully invoke the use of stand-your-ground laws in their defense after a shooting than women — especially black women — or black men. Self-defense has long been available as a criminal defense for lethal and non-lethal confrontations. Traditionally, this defence imposes the duty to retreat before force is used when a secure retirement is available. Stand-your-ground laws – called by some shooting laws first – abolish this obligation to back down in certain cases of self-defense. By abolishing this rule, stand-your-ground laws are designed to remove barriers to self-defense in order to further deter criminal victimization. Given the availability of self-defense laws for situations where a safe retirement is not possible, stand-your-ground laws apply primarily when a person can safely withdraw from an attack or when the availability of a secure retirement is ambiguous. Judge Healey`s warning is urgently needed at a time when stand-your-ground laws are in place to protect shooters who decide to initiate or escalate a confrontation. There are far too many examples of individuals acting as armed vigilantes and then hiding behind stand-your-ground laws. In 2007, Texan Joe Horn ignored instructions from a 911 dispatcher who had advised him to stay home when he called to report that his neighbor`s house had been broken into.
One newspaper published part of Horn`s 911 call: There are no federal laws on Stand Your Ground. This is a policy addressed only by state laws, court decisions, jury orders, or a combination of the three. Supporters of the Stand Your Ground laws say they are a way to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves without fear of prosecution. But our legal system already has robust self-defense laws. Available research also suggests that, rather than making us safer, basic laws lead to an increase in unlawful killing rates.  Contrary to what supporters of Stand Your Ground claim, there is no credible study showing that these laws encourage legitimate acts of self-defense. “Stand Your Ground laws overturn centuries of traditional self-defense doctrine and threaten public safety by promoting armed justice and allowing a person to kill another person in a public place, even if they can clearly and safely walk away from danger. » – Everytown For Gun Safety En 2020, la RAND Corporation a publié une revue de recherche sur l’impact de diverses armes liées aux armes et a noté que des preuves solides appuyaient les lois sur le tir d’abord avec une augmentation dans 6Rosanna Smart et al., « Stand-Your-Ground Laws », dans The Science of Gun Policy: A Critical Synthesis of Research Evidence on the Effects of Gun Policies in the United States, deuxième édition (RAND Corporation, 2020), 235-50, www.rand.org/t/RR2088-1; RAND Corporation, « The Effects of Stand-Your-Ground Laws », p. 22.
avril 2020, bit.ly/3ay1a1y; RAND Corporation, « Gun Policy Research Review », Gun Policy in America, abgerufen am 11. Dezember 2020, bit.ly/3mEwq1w.